About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN 12
MSNBCW 6
CSPAN2 3
CNNW 2
MSNBC 2
CNN 1
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
republican senators now say they cannot support the u.n. ambassador, susan rice, for secretary of state. at least until they get more answers about her comments about the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. president obama has not yet even nominated her. but the white house says she is enormously qualified. senators john mccain, lindsey graham and kelly ayotte say they're even more troubled now after meeting with ambassador rice. the attack on libya on september 11 killed the u.s. ambassador, cries stevens and three other americans. five days later, ambassador rice went on the sunday talk shows and said u.s. officials believed it was a spontaneous reaction to protest over an anti-islam video. not a preplanned terrorist attack. first the controversy was over whether the white house made the change in the talking points. but that's past because intelligence officials say they gave ambassador rice those talking points. today senator graham called the information disconnected from reality. >> not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unju
today's meeting? former u.n. ambassador john bolton joins us. good evening, sir. your thoughts about today's meeting with ambassador rice on capitol hill. >> well, from susan rice's point of view this meeting was a disaster, an opportunity to try to draw the sting out of the opposition that had been expressed by senator mccain and the others. obviously went in the opposite direction, when you have all three of the senators who participated in the meeting coming out after and saying they have more questions now than they did before. this was a bad meeting. no doubt about it. and i think part of the problem here is the -- is the continued focus by the white house, by susan rice, by people looking at it on these so-called talking points that somebody provided to her. i'll just put it this way based on my own experience in government. nobody who's truly competent rinsereads talking points for ay purpose. if you're good enough to be an official, you don't make up words. you follow policy asset by the president, but the notion you can be a cabinet-level official and be given talking points
for the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. what's the latest, dana? >> reporter: wolf, the three republican senators who had vowed to block susan rice from being secretary of state if the president nominates her had really softened the rhetoric in recent days. i'm told the reason for that was because it was a curtesy in order for them to wait until they had a face-to-face meeting with her which was today. after that meeting their criticism was harsher than ever. the way these grim-faced gop senators tell it, susan rice's attempt to calm their criticism backfired. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> reporter: rice requested to meet with her chief republican critics in order to explain why five days after the september benghazi attack that killed four americans she went on sunday talk shows suggesting it was sparked by a spontaneous protest. >> the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. >> reporter: accompanied b
to susan rice, as a nominee? >> i am always in favor of u.n. ambassadors making something of themselves when they finish at the u.n. if the president wants to have a fight he thinks he can win, he can get a fight with susan rice. let's be crass about this. i think the president thinks he's on a roll. i think he thinks republicans are going to fold like a cheap suit on taxes and entitlements. i think ultimately he thinks they will fold on susan rice, too. my guess is, he nominates her. he thinks he is going to win and he emerges stronger. if republicans want to take a position on susan rice, they better be prepared to think through the implication and not hand the president a victory he doesn't deserve. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. senator john thune is here and joining us. >> good evening, greta. >> have you seen anything to indicate we are close to a resolution or moving in that direction? >> i haven't. it's hard to come to a resolution when one of the parties is not around. the president is on the campaign trail again -- >> you are referring to his trip on friday to pennsylvania?
susan rice to the foreign relations committee in the senate when she was first nominated to be the u.n. ambassador. so clearly i want her to be successful. i was proud of her. and yet i left that meeting with less of a feeling with about her judgment and about her suitability to be secretary of state. >> now, kelly, much has been made of this. and i think some of it rightly so, susan collins is not a conservative republican. is this -- is this just, again, posturi posturing? because susan collins, what you don't hear susan collins saying if nominated i will vote against her. you've heard few say that. what is this? is it real opposition there with susan rice, or is it kind of talking a warning sign to maybe get more on benghazi if nominated? >> reporter: i do think the leverage to get more on benghazi is a real thing here. i find from senators, they take so seriously the role of advise and consent for nominees that they try to be very careful about not throwing around the i won't vote for until there are hearings, until there's a nomination. they believe in the process. you pointed out
've heard, seen perhaps more cyberattacks that are maybe something like an armed attack under the u.n. charter. conceivably i suppose even an act of war, though that is a debatable point as to whether we've seen anything like that to date. i have put a few terms of the things that are really. computer network attack, as we've been talking up, computer network exploitation is basically efforts to infiltrate a computer network for any other purpose i just described. so maybe some sort of armed attack. maybe it's for criminal activities and you're hoping to be surreptitious about what you can. maybe it's her espionage and then you're hoping to be surreptitious. cite a few examples of how these concepts and relate to one another. and how come if you are in the business of computer network defense, you are trying to defend networks at your company but if you're looking at this from a policy perspective for the united states, for example, how vulnerable is the united states, how vulnerable is our critical infrastructure and nuclear power plants, things like that. you quickly see that an inf
north korea it strikes me that kim jung un is allowing to some westernized foods and such in. do you foresee anything be an done about the boming and the supposed sunken ship? i don't see any sanctions from the administration on north korea. what specifically president obama dealing with this, i think there are things that should be done. i think he could possibly talk to him and maybe get back to the six party talks. i would like to know your views on that. thank you. guest: i think that's a good point. the new leader in north korea, kim jong un, is in power. but it is a famously closed society. there's certainly a fear of nuclear escalation and there have been shakeups within the north korean military. whether or not that's an internal power struggle, we do not know. one of the top generals was perhaps killed by mortar fire. perhaps that is something that obama will bring to the table on his trip to asia, but i think there is a consistent policy that we want to prevent nuclear escalation in the region and it is true for all sides. japan, south korea, china, and other areas. we just
that has nothing to do with health food. >> it's turning into a proxy war between senator john mccain and u.n. ambassador susan rice. top intelligence officials say they knew from the beginning that terrorism was involved in the attacks but kept rice's comments vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings. they knew terrorism was involved but didn't know whether the attacks were planned in advance and they didn't have the suspect's identity. still, many house repub cans are saying he's unfit to succeed secretary clinton at the state department. >> i'm just curious. john heilman, first of all -- >> elizabeth warren. >> let's just say what happened, okay? the president's punch line was al qaeda is on the run, blah, blah, blah. they politicized intel. guess what, white houses do that. i'm not shocked, i'm not stunned. i wish they wouldn't have done it. but how do you protect americans in the future and what happened after the ambassador was already killed? but how long has susan rice been in public service, like since her 20s, right? >> a long time. >> so we actually have people on capit
of mass destruction. and the moon landing was real. and fema is not building concentration camps. and un election observers are not taking over texas. and moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism. listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. because in this country, we have a two-party system in government. and the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. they both propose possible solutions to our real problems. and we debate between those possible solutions. and by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. that competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. and the if the republican party and the conservative movem
are talking about is who is going to replace hillary clinton. the two names who have voted is u.n. ambassador susan rice and john kerry. i have no problem with susan rice. i think she's fantastic and unfortunate how she's been treated recently. i tell you, john kerry during this campaign has been fantastic in his debate prep with the president. i thought his speech as the dp nc was brilliant, and i think he would be a terrific diplomat. there's concerns that if he was nominated then the senate -- his senate seat would be open and scott brown could have another shot at getting into the senate. i don't think that would be the worst thing in the world for the president, especially since we picked up seats this time around. scott brown, as a republican who may actually across the aisle, could actually serve as a useful political tool for the president. that will be interesting to watch. the other one, of course, is treasury secretary time geithner leaving. one of the outside names that's been floated is cheryl sandberg, coo of facebook. she's the first one and she's had a terrific choice. another
to war without a declaration by congress but accepting international authority from the u.n. or nato or even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression. a financial political crisis as a -- number four, a financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts and gross discrepancy in gross dispribution go from the mill class to the rich. the danger of central economic planning by the federal reserve must be understood. world government taking over local and u.s. sompt by getting involved in the -- sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, banking, taxes, property, ownership and private -- private ownership of guns must be addressed. happily, there's an answer for these very dangerous trends. what a wonderful world it would be if we accepted the moral premise of act of aggression. a suggestion is always too simplistic, utopian, dangerous and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. the answer to that is after thousands of years, the acceptance of government force to rule over the people at the sacrifice of l
deal off the ground? one decision facing the president in the next week, will u.n. ambassador susan rice be his nominee to succeed hillary clinton as secretary of state or will it be john kerry? they are the two contenders in the spotlight as it is intensified by republicans. a new wave of protests in cairo as egypt's president expands his power on the heels of helping to broker a ceasefire between israel and hamas. >>> new egyptian leader, same old story for the u.s. relationship? good morning from washington. it's monday, november 26, 2012. this is "the daily rundown." i'm chuck todd. welcome back from the long break. let's get right to my first reads of the morning. congressional leaders return to washington this week and with just 36 days left to avert the so-called fiscal cliff becoming more apparent that senate republicans want a deal and they would like one pretty quick. but while there may be a bi-p t bipartisan consensus to raise taxes on the wealthy, the sides are still far apart on where the revenue will come from. staff level negotiations are a little bit more than stal
several examples of massive united nations lead interventions where the u.n. moved in and established a presence in iraq and afghanistan. it was u.s. and nato lead. in the middle east and north africa particularly in these countries we are discussing something new is happening. in some respects the international community learning to do things differently. we are not going back to what we have done in the last 20 years. we are going to do it in a different way and has an international community we are learning what that process is and if you are on the ground you can see it. a lot of people -- there's a hesitancy about this intervention and this involvement that is quite telling and wasn't there in the past. >> thank you. >> i would like to know -- i am abigail woodward and i would like to know how women's rights are being protected and advanced and i would like to know if the muslim brotherhood has seen this debate impediment to that and how the constitutions are including them. >> let's start with the most significant case, constitutional issues and the role of the muslim brotherhoo
to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. host: president obama at a press conference today. the ambassador he was talking about is susan rice. here is an image of her in "the washington times." our question for you this morning is about the white house national security team. here is what steve tweets -- morris in san diego and joins us now, a republican color. caller: i have no confidence whatsoever in this national security team. i have less confidence a denture the president. i think this whole thing leads right to the white house. write to the oval office. president obama has made some statements already there are so contradictory there is no way he can explain the contradiction of his comments. you talk about a transparent administration -- yes, there are transparent. you can see right through them. there are as corrupt as any i have seen. i think this will lead to impeachment. i think he will be convicted of it as well. host: here is
. when i look at what's going on this area, to u.n. security council is dysfunctional, not working, not capable of coming to a conclusion. the g20 has not fulfilled, at least not according to me, the expectations we had when this larger body was created. in other words, from a european point of view, you need to worry about the fact that europe will have obviously a smaller portion of the cake in the future. germany is going to a 1% of the worlds population. the e.u. altogether 5%, 40 or so. in other words, what probably needs minority protection. we have a ton about that much. that's a specific problem for europeans, not so much for americans. if that is correct analysis, did we need to worry about global governance. we are capable as long as we are in charge and as long as we still represent to some degree the majority and as long as are capable for helping to shape the international system. we are capable of shaping an international system, which will be sustained even when we are only a minority. in other words, we called the shot. can we reform the u.n., the g20 system and oth
of some year. >> bill: but why? what's un-american about raising taxes? >> look, no one likes -- the same way that no one likes spending cuts and don't forget the complaints about the -- if you're going to complain about the deficit or be worried about it, you can't say i'm worried about the deficit but don't do this. >> bill: right. >> i don't want to pay anymore which i hear a lot. i don't want to pay anymore either but i also would like to get us out -- >> bill: i don't want to pay anymore but i'm glad to pay my fair share and i do. >> that's the way i feel when i do my tax returns every year. this is a pain but i'm happy to do it and i actually think i get a lot of value for what i pay. >> bill: they say we're doing this in the legacy of ronald reagan. bull you know what. ronald reagan raised taxes five times. >> reagan would have no place in the current republican party given some of the things they did. grover norquist holds him up as an icon. grover is in a completely different place than he is on t
mccain is softening his attacks on u.n. ambassador susan rice after vowing to block her potential nomination as secretary of state. republicans claim ambassador rice deliberately misled the country in the aftermath of the september 11th attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. but rice says that she's not to blame, arguing she relied on the talking points from the intelligence community. although mccain had threatened a senate filibuster earlier this month, he's now open to meeting directly with miss rice. >> is there anything that ambassador rice can do to change your mind about it? >> sure. she can -- i give everyone the benefit of explaining their position and the actions that they took. and i'll be glad to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. >> she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. >> the white house says no decisions have been made as far as cabinet selections for the president's second term. and john heilemann, part of what you wrote about th
's the photo from the u.n. yesterday. the headline is the u.s. heightens the state of palestine, this is mahmoud abbas congratulated by turkey's foreign minister as this took place as 130 countries agreed to upgrade palestine to trying to palestine and going on in the story of break downs, 138 countries in favor, nine opposed, 41 abstaining so the president is backing for the palace at a difficult time host: one more call. ron, this is evansville, indiana on our independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: well, i tell you, a lot of people just ain't getting what's going on here. the republicans are trying to defund the government to the point where they can get rid of the social programs they cannot stand. they can't come in and just willy nily say they are over but they can defund the government and legitimately say we can e we can't afford them. they divided the country in half and turned part of the country against the other part thinking it's all their fault. well, it's not. it's been a plan by the republicans to defund the government so they
. host: here is an interesting article. if all or on twitter says, what about the u.n. watchers that have been followed with threats of arrest? who are they and what are they here? -- why are they here? guest: they have come to elections in the last 20 years and moderate them. to be clear in terms of what they actually do the polls now, they are not trying to intervene in anything that is going on. they are observers. they are watching what is happening. they are taking notes. i actually got to see their observer form on saturday. at the end of the election, they come up with a report to talk about how the election went, how the system operated. it is something that happens all over the world. my view, it is really bad form for the attorney-general from texas, and also the secretary of state from iowa, who basically say we will arrest these observers as they come out and see our with elections. the truth of the matter is, we should be transparent about this process and willing to let people see how our elections run. host: from fox news, greta van susteren said, the election is none of th
explained. un best issloloathes structured time, and he let his aides know that spending a day in a hotel room awaiting results was unacceptable. the mood all there was resolute ly relax and playful. the campaign's chief strategist wandered to the back of the plane to shoot reporters with a gun." -- with a nerf joyce, oregon, on our republican line. give us your take on yesterday's election. caller: good morning. i hope i can fully say all that i feel this morning. funeral, so my emotions are kind of up. i just want to said that obama has a beautiful family. he is our leader, and god tells us to pray for our leaders. this is real important. my prayer is that the whole -- the whole nation's prayer is that obama will lead with that obama will lead with integrity
ambassador to the u.n. and a fox news contributor. you say today our adversaries are breathing a sigh of relief, why? >> i think they have sized up president obama during his first term. they've seen he's a weak, inch attentive leader. they are not going to wait around for us to get our economic house in order. i think almost certainly during his second term that the pace and the scope of challenges that the united states will face will accelerate. jenna: why? >> you've named some of them. because they see a president who doesn't really concern himself with foreign affairs, who doesn't see, for example, iran's continuing progress toward nuclear weapons as the threat that it is. you have president putin who has already congratulated president obama on his re-election, undoubtedly thinking of the famous conversation with former president, russian president medevev about how flexible president obama will be after the re-election. now it's come to pass. why shouldn't they be happy. jenna: let's think about what you would say to the president -- you're laughing. you can't take him off the
whether or not we saw netanyahu at that big red magic marker in front of the u.n. general assembly. we'll see what obama's next move is in that standoff. christiane amanpour, always a pleasure. thank you. >> thank you. >>> and we have the same president, the same parties in charge of both the house and the senate. now that the campaign is over, are there any hopes here that our political leaders will reach out across party lines to solve some of the big problems we face? that debate is next. ace is? maybe somewhere around my house. mine's just, right over that way. well you can find out exactly where it is using bing elections. it's a good day for politics. which way do you lean politically? conservative. republican. well, using the bing news selector you can find news from whichever way you lean. (together) social on this side, financial. which party is currently predicted to win a majority in the senate? the republicans? would you make a bet on that? no. are you chicken? a short word that's a tall order. up your game. up the ante. and if you stumble, you get back up. up isn't easy, a
international allies, partners, the guys we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- for romney, obama's regas overseas, his inability to stand up to this rising asian power. the united states and china are so intertwined economically that is a very hard to start
. secretary of state hillary clinton will also transition out. u.n. ambassador susan rice was seen as likely replacement that could be in jeopardy given her public involvement in the very controversial benghazi situation. but also looking at that position, senator kerri. seen as potential contender for secretary of state slot, jenna. jenna: you mentioned burnout some of the personal reasons folks don't stay two terms. what are the key decisions that will impact the decisions? >> i mentioned fiscal cliff with that coming, issues about sequestration. defense secretary leon panetta has been very vocal about the fears of the impact on the pentagon. he has been very involved in the negotiations. we talked to a professor from to us son state university. she said when people are invested in the negotiations they don't like to walk away. that is probably true of secretary panetta. here is what she told us. >> defense secretary leon panetta, he has fought hard against sequestration because he didn't want to see the type of cuts that sequestration called for the defense department. and he is going to
that you have millions of people un document. if you move people out of that status, that will have a positive benefit not just to people, but to wages being depressed. equity is a critical issue. we face a significant challenge -- in the short-term, medium- term, and long term, there is so much inequity in education. it is not something that the political process likes to discuss, but it is one in which we need to think more creatively about how -- ideas not good for our -- it is not good for us in the medium or long-term. >> nice to go last on this because i can think. [laughter] a really high-quality pre-k -- >> i agree. >> education for kids at the bottom of the income scale. this is supported by conservatives and liberals alike. a nobel-laureate economist to i think is associated with republicans has written eloquently about how critically important -- and there has got to be a significant government will pick it will not happen withou -- significant government role. it will not happen without. and this is of be, but full employment. during my lifetime, the only time i've seen
grover norquist. this man is an un-elected person who is making you sign a pledge that has nothing to do with -- with the country. guest: thank you. respectfully disagree on all accounts. especially at the very beginning. you made the case that we are talking about 47%. the fact is, republicans are not. democrats are raising this issue over and over. they see political advantage in it, but one of our frustrations as republicans with that 47% is that many of them don't have the good-paying type of jobs they want that would allow them to be taxpayers. our frustration is that we have an economy that is flying so low and so slow it's very weak. we have so many people unemployed. so many people on food stamps. so many people who don't have a choice they have to rely on the government. we want that 47% to be reduced by stronger economic growth. we want those who begin in the lower classes of income to become middle tax taxpayers. and to rise to higher levels as well. that's our frustration. host: congressman braidy, we have been talking about this fiscal cliff that congress is grappling with a
we do business with at the u.n. -- where is everyone else prepared to be before we go forward? host: on russia, this is the "wall street journal." the defeat was a relief in russia because mitt romney had called moscow the number one political foe of the u.s. it was added that mr. vladimir putin sent a telegram to mr. obama that the kremlin said was secret until the u.s. revealed the contents. dmitry medvedev posted a "congratulations" on twitter. so that was from russia. another foreign policy issue is china. here is the "new york times." warm words from china with a subtext of warning. robust relationships with china while maintaining traditional military ties with the u.s. we do not want to be forced to choose between beijing and washington but what is going on here? guest: it has to be looked at in the context of the campaign that just ended. china emerged as a symbol -- for romney, obama's weakness overseas, his inability to stand up to this rising asian power. the united states and china are so intertwined economically that is a very hard to start any kind of a fight between t
and a person i am proud to call my friend and more proud to call my u.n. ambassador and would be even more proud to call her my secretary of state. so let us be clear it is unfair and i think unpatriot tick to assume that the chief diplomat would woefully, purposefully mislead the american public. to be come police to us in this tragedy at all is offensive. i think we need to get back to the nation's business and finding the real cull patriots who took the lives of the four americans. we need to leave the full weight of the american government to find those cull patriots and leave ambassador rice alone to do her job. let's get back to the work of the american people. >> as you can see there is a great deal of passion on this issue and to close us out it's going to be a good friend and colleague of ours from california who herself has had years of distinguished leadership in the california assembly as the speaker. mad dam speaker. and really understands leadership abilities and what they are. it's very difficult to recruit qualified women and senator mccain should know that. it is very diff
the nuclear option when he argued for people to suggest that you can read the rules to change the rules is un-american. the only way to change the role is to a rule that says to change a role in the senate's prose requires 67 votes. you cannot do it with 60 or with 51. i agree with senator reid in thousand 5 that the promise of the senate majority leader harry reid's actions are against the will of the american people and the intent of our founders. on april 13, 2005, senator barack obama argued that removing the filibuster would cause more partisanship. he said -- the american people want less partisanship but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority ends the filibuster that they choose to change the rules and and democratic debate. the fighting, bitterness, and gridlock will get worse. senator chuck schumer of new york argued on may 10, 2005 -- the basic made up of our senate is at stake. the checks and balances that americans prize are at stake. the idea of bipartisanship we have to come together. you cannot as a lamb everything through because to have a narrow majority is at st
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)